The times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1882-1897, 1887-08-12

In the fourth ward at J. Brooks store.
West Owosso.
The City Attorney made the following
report which was received and placed on
fle
To the Hon Mayor and Common Council
of the city of Owosso; Gentlemen:
In relation 10 the legality of the vote in
favor of bonding the city fer $40, 900 for
the purpose of putting in a system Of
Wafer Works, and the legality of the ac-
ton of the Council in submitting such
question to the people, after very careful
examination of both of these questions, l
would report as follows:
October 18th, 1886, the Common Coun
Gill; at regular meeting, in response to a
petition of eighiy-one Of the taxpayers Of
this city. voted 10 submit the question OF
bonding the city for $40. 900 for Water
Works, to the people to be voted upon by
them upon Tuesday, the second day of
November, A. ID. 1886, at the general
election to be held at TINT time. 1t has
been said that this action of the Council,
TO submit, was illegal and void for the
reason that at this meeting only bare
quorum of the Aldermen was present, and
that only three Aldermen voted in favor OF
submission while two voted against, and
that Section 215 of the city Charter re
quired ga vote of majority of the Alder
men of of said city," 1t certainly does re-
quire majority of the Aldermen Of the
city under said Section when the question
Of voting The bonds for such purpose is
acted upon by the Council; but cannot
find anything between the lids of our city
Charter which requires that majority of
all the Aldermen of the city is required To
vote 10 simply submit The question to the
people, and / am informed that was all
that WAS contemplated at that time. and
that the voting of The bonds by the Cpun
ell was TO come afterwards-after the peo-
pie, at The polls, had expressed themselves
either for or against such action. AS L
understand it. the Council has never yet
since said time ratified the action OF the
people at the polls; when that time comes
it will take majority vote OF all the Alder
men of the city to do so. So it seems to
me that there can be no question but that
the action OF the Council upon the 18Th
day Of October, 1886, was perfectly legal,
and canrot see how anyone, after care
full examination OF our city Charter can
come to any other conclusion. III has also
been said that the question that at that
time was submitted 10 the people was not
carried'for the reason that II did not re-
cciye Q majority vote of all voters OF the
city voting u. such election.
The objection TO such literal construc.
ton Of this provision of The charter is that
1t leads to d.results; there being no
method or authority by which majority
vote Of all the voters Of the city Of Owosso
can be asccrtcined or decided if the Char
ter meant what is claimed by those who
oppose the legality of the election, it would
provided some test by which that majority
could be recognized and determined again:
If this view is TO be entertained, the vote
in favor of Water Works may always be
defeated by the mere inaction OF thevotcrs
instead of by al active and fair vote as The
law contemplates, il seems plain that the
object of any provision OF the Charter re-
qurng a popular vote is TO require voting
and mere abstraction from casting the bal
lot. If this is las Latter careful exami-
nation. believe it is when | see that the
present law provides no test for determin-
ing what a majority vote OF all the voters
shall be, am inclined to the belief that
the election already held is in entire COM
pliance with the spirit of that provision OF
the Charter which provided for it. In
support CT the above proposition | would
cite Cooley's Constitutional Limitations,
page 619 "A plurality of the votes cast
will be sufficient 10 elect notwithstanding
these may constitute but small portion of
those who are entitled TO vote" And
even if the majority expressly dissent yet
| If they do not vote the election by the mi
nOrity will be valid
Yours Respectfully.
JEROME E. TURNER,